Flawless driving conditions = Speed vans everywhere?

[alangla]

Or it could be because most of the portable cameras don't work in the dark or in poor visibility, though I hear Dumfries & Galloway may now have some night-sight Talivans at work on the M74.

I can only think of one instance recently where I've seen a Talivan out on a Saturday - never seen any on a Sunday (though I've seen cops sitting on bridges with a hairdryer out the car window). There's loads of them around Mon-Fri. SCPs appointing staff on M-F only contracts?

[Deva Link]

Rigs said:

I've noticed this year on year...

How come?

Personally, it doesn't do wonders for my respect for speed limits when they are quite blatantly policing them when more people are likely to be breaking them (i.e. when Joe Public is aware conditions are very safe)

I've said this before - you see a nice stretch of driving road, they see a revenue generating opportunity.

You've really got to consider that before opening up - you're much more likely to get caught on a safe bit of road than a dangerous one, where the traffic slows up naturally.

[Chester Drawers]

[quote=vonhosen
The limit has still to be enforced if it's in place, even if it's in place for reasons other than safety.
[/quote]

Nothing personal Mr VH, I'm sure you're a thoroughly decent bloke but this type of attitude sickens me. Abject obedience to the law, no questioning of its appropriatness or justification leads to a totalitarian style system of complacency. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die"

If speed limits were actually set taking into account all (I mean all) relevant factors such as housing proximity, width of road, proximity to pedestrians etx then how do you justify that an ad hoc imposed lower speed limit is correct? Example, A12 Stonham Parva, used to be a NSL and it's now 30mph.

I'm sorry but I do not agree that enforcement of rules is the correct approach, enforcement if the rules are justifiable by all means but we should never cease to challenge whether the rules are appropriate. There's something to be said for the argument "Rules are made for the guidance of men and the restraint of idiots"

[vonhosen]

Chester Drawers said:

vonhosen said:

The limit has still to be enforced if it's in place, even if it's in place for reasons other than safety.

Nothing personal Mr VH, I'm sure you're a thoroughly decent bloke but this type of attitude sickens me. Abject obedience to the law, no questioning of its appropriatness or justification leads to a totalitarian style system of complacency. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die"

If speed limits were actually set taking into account all (I mean all) relevant factors such as housing proximity, width of road, proximity to pedestrians etx then how do you justify that an ad hoc imposed lower speed limit is correct? Example, A12 Stonham Parva, used to be a NSL and it's now 30mph.

I'm sorry but I do not agree that enforcement of rules is the correct approach, enforcement if the rules are justifiable by all means but we should never cease to challenge whether the rules are appropriate. There's something to be said for the argument "Rules are made for the guidance of men and the restraint of idiots"

I don't know the reason it was changed & I won't necessarily know when driving down it either (& by simply driving down it without that knowledge I wouldn't be in a position to question it. If I want to question it I need to speak to those who imposed it & the basis upon which they did).

A simple rule & the law aren't the same thing either. By all means question those who make the laws, but I know of plenty of NSLs that are now lower limits & quite appropriately too IMHO.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 24th June 21:06

[herewego]

Mr E Driver said:

I have been to a Ducati event in South Wales and riding down Friday we didn't see one police vehicle or any scamera vans.
On the way home Sunday morning we were stopped by two 'roadside checks' with VOSA and police and further down the road we came round a bend and there was a scamera van parked at the end of the straight road 60 limit.
The guy riding at the front knew it was a favourite place and had slowed us all down to 30 and as soon as we passed it, down a couple of gears and back to our reasonable making safe progress speed.

If this isn't cynical cash collecting I don't know what is.

Surely slowing to 30 for the camera then speeding up again to the detriment of the village is cynical too.

[saaby93]

Chester Drawers said:

If speed limits were actually set taking into account all (I mean all) relevant factors such as housing proximity, width of road, proximity to pedestrians etx then how do you justify that an ad hoc imposed lower speed limit is correct? Example, A12 Stonham Parva, used to be a NSL and it's now 30mph.

I dont know the road but have you asked why - they could easily have got it wrong. If you dont query these things they're less likely to change than if you do.

[Mr E Driver]

herewego said:

Mr E Driver said:

I have been to a Ducati event in South Wales and riding down Friday we didn't see one police vehicle or any scamera vans.
On the way home Sunday morning we were stopped by two 'roadside checks' with VOSA and police and further down the road we came round a bend and there was a scamera van parked at the end of the straight road 60 limit.
The guy riding at the front knew it was a favourite place and had slowed us all down to 30 and as soon as we passed it, down a couple of gears and back to our reasonable making safe progress speed.

If this isn't cynical cash collecting I don't know what is.

Surely slowing to 30 for the camera then speeding up again to the detriment of the village is cynical too.

It was not in a village, (they were in a lay by) it was a 60 limit but we were going half the speed limit just to piss them off

[saaby93]

Mr E Driver said:

It was not in a village, (they were in a lay by) it was a 60 limit but we were going half the speed limit just to piss them off

Did it do that?

[Mr E Driver]

Although we didn't stop and ask them if it pissed them off, they were deprived of about half a dozen £60 and maybe a bit more from the 2nd group behind us as well

[berg1]

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Bit difficult as the (incorrect) limit is directly related to the presence of vans though. The vans will only be there, as you said, specially when the weather is good in incorrect speed limit areas as that will get the biggest catch.

You won't see them in the rain near a school ....

When I've been around schools a kicking out time I haven't witnessed much speeding going on.
Kids (as a rule) don't tend to knocked over & killed directly outside the school, it happens further away.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 June 22:37

That also means, that as a rule, the drivers adjust the speed appropriately where needed.

As they are also not out when it rains (again, the drivers adjust their speed where needed), therefore the conclusion is that no traps are needed (and also explains why they are only on the sunny days on the clearest of roads).

The limit has still to be enforced if it's in place, even if it's in place for reasons other than safety.

But it helps if there is more profit in it

[vonhosen]

berg1 said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

vonhosen said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Bit difficult as the (incorrect) limit is directly related to the presence of vans though. The vans will only be there, as you said, specially when the weather is good in incorrect speed limit areas as that will get the biggest catch.

You won't see them in the rain near a school ....

When I've been around schools a kicking out time I haven't witnessed much speeding going on.
Kids (as a rule) don't tend to knocked over & killed directly outside the school, it happens further away.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 June 22:37

That also means, that as a rule, the drivers adjust the speed appropriately where needed.

As they are also not out when it rains (again, the drivers adjust their speed where needed), therefore the conclusion is that no traps are needed (and also explains why they are only on the sunny days on the clearest of roads).

The limit has still to be enforced if it's in place, even if it's in place for reasons other than safety.

But it helps if there is more profit in it

If motorists do what they are supposed to there'll be no money in it at all. It's motorist's inability to show a little restraint that results in the fines.

[Puff the magic..]

Rigs said:

I've noticed this year on year...

How come?

Personally, it doesn't do wonders for my respect for speed limits when they are quite blatantly policing them when more people are likely to be breaking them (i.e. when Joe Public is aware conditions are very safe)

Excluding notching up a.another speeder on a scoreboard, surely it makes more sense to be policing the limits when conditions are poor rather than when they are perfect? Is it really simply a case of catching most people?

...and for that reason it is exactly when the peak or death and injuries occur. What you have considered the safest conditions is evidently not.
Do you want to reconsider your question with that information on board?

[berg1]

This subject really boils my piss.
The same people on here will blindly follow the company mantra of all speeding is evil and as such needs to be wiped out by persecution prosecution.
Where does the education come into it, how are people going to become better/safer drivers by this attitude.
Hopefully with this new lot in power the idea that everything can be controlled by bringing out a new law will change.
The police don't seem to understand the utter resentment they create by acting in underhanded ways as demonstrated by the o/p and the bikers above. No doubt Von and his ilk will be along to try and shoot me down, however in my experience(which is 50,000 miles p/a for over 20 years) I have found that education such as road reading, driving to the conditions etc is much safer than having to check your speedo every few seconds to see if you have crept up to 36mph.
The plod on here will continue to try and brainwash us as they themselves have been, hopefully mopst mop's can see this scam for what it is. Ripping off generally safe motorists in the name of safety.


I am not a number I am a free man

[saaby93]

berg1 said:

Hopefully with this new lot in power the idea that everything can be controlled by bringing out a new law will change.
The police don't seem to understand the utter resentment they create by acting in underhanded ways as demonstrated by the o/p and the bikers above. No doubt Von and his ilk will be along to try and shoot me down, however in my experience(which is 50,000 miles p/a for over 20 years) I have found that education such as road reading, driving to the conditions etc is much safer than having to check your speedo every few seconds to see if you have crept up to 36mph.

think youve mixed up policy and ( lack of) implementation

[berg1]

saaby93 said:

berg1 said:

Hopefully with this new lot in power the idea that everything can be controlled by bringing out a new law will change.
The police don't seem to understand the utter resentment they create by acting in underhanded ways as demonstrated by the o/p and the bikers above. No doubt Von and his ilk will be along to try and shoot me down, however in my experience(which is 50,000 miles p/a for over 20 years) I have found that education such as road reading, driving to the conditions etc is much safer than having to check your speedo every few seconds to see if you have crept up to 36mph.

think youve mixed up policy and ( lack of) implementation

Who's policy?

Edited by berg1 on Thursday 24th June 22:34

[saaby93]

berg1 said:

Who's policy?

The DfT. They were trying to be independent of government but let's see what happens.
What you said does look like current policy

berg1 said:

education such as road reading, driving to the conditions etc is much safer than having to check your speedo every few seconds to see if you have crept up to 36mph.

If everyone's doing about 36 then the limit should be at least 40.
If everyone else is doing 25-28 and you're the only one on 36 then you could be due for a ticket - or not - depending on the limit

[herewego]

saaby93 said:

berg1 said:

Who's policy?

The DfT. They were trying to be independent of government but let's see what happens.
What you said does look like current policy

berg1 said:

education such as road reading, driving to the conditions etc is much safer than having to check your speedo every few seconds to see if you have crept up to 36mph.

If everyone's doing about 36 then the limit should be at least 40.
If everyone else is doing 25-28 and you're the only one on 36 then you could be due for a ticket - or not - depending on the limit

I'm not sure this takes into account the fact that people take the limit into account when they're watching their speed. On a main road 30, people will typically drive at 35 to 45, but if the limit was raised to 40 then their speeds would be 45 to 55. This would clearly be unacceptable in a residential area.

[EU_Foreigner]

Puff the magic.. said:

Rigs said:

I've noticed this year on year...

How come?

Personally, it doesn't do wonders for my respect for speed limits when they are quite blatantly policing them when more people are likely to be breaking them (i.e. when Joe Public is aware conditions are very safe)

Excluding notching up a.another speeder on a scoreboard, surely it makes more sense to be policing the limits when conditions are poor rather than when they are perfect? Is it really simply a case of catching most people?

...and for that reason it is exactly when the peak or death and injuries occur. What you have considered the safest conditions is evidently not.
Do you want to reconsider your question with that information on board?

Do you have data to back that up? I.e. that there are more accidents in perfect weather conditions (with higher road speeds) then in poor weather?

[Political Pain]

vonhosen said:

If motorists do what they are supposed to there'll be no money in it at all. It's motorist's inability to show a little restraint that results in the fines.

Why does the above leave me with the image of a Warder in a Gulag telling the inmates that if they struggle to escape their straight-jackets they'll dislocate their shoulders or worse and it will be their own fault?

[saaby93]

herewego said:

I'm not sure this takes into account the fact that people take the limit into account when they're watching their speed. On a main road 30, people will typically drive at 35 to 45, but if the limit was raised to 40 then their speeds would be 45 to 55. This would clearly be unacceptable in a residential area.

Two different things residential area or main road. The term is something like road with other than local access function. Aside from speeds may not rise as youve said, it may not be clearly unacceptable.